diy solar

diy solar

Good news for Farmers?

svetz

Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Joined
Sep 20, 2019
Messages
7,308
Location
Key Largo
The U.S. Long Term Strategy to Net-Zero doesn't do away with the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE). Instead, it suggests gasoline be replaced with renewable green fuels.

Is this sustainability good news for farmers & the world? The U.S. 2018 Farm Bill Energy Title is probably just the beginning. I can see crops that can be converted into fuel as being profitable in that a hungry market will exist as fossil fuels are phased out.

I believe the thought is that as biofuel/gasoline prices go up, people will readily abandon ICE vehicles over the next 20 years for lower-cost and more reliable EVs that are far more economical. Environmentally, biofuels seem like they could overall be carbon negative.

But history also shows well-intentioned ideas can have very bad consequences if they're not thought out carefully. For example, if all the crops the U.S. produces already have a market, wouldn't switching to create fuel crops leave shortages?

What are your thoughts?
 
Is this sustainability good news...? Without reading the documents you refer to I can't answer that question. Is Net-Zero sustainability good? Yep but unrealistic. Someone will always want more.
Fuel vs food crops should reach a balance region unless outside forces work against natural checks & balances.

Sounds good on the surface. So much depends upon an individual's level of motivation, knowledge and ability to change. I doubt the planet can be totally screwed or saved while I am here but given a choice which way to proceed, I'll choose the later.
 
I think we'll also see a huge decline in ICE (and all) vehicles as the workforce shifts to "work from home". Hundreds of millions of people have to travel hundreds of millions of miles every day just to get to work and back. A lot of those people go to an office building and do their entire job on a computer, "COVID" I think has woke people up in a sense that they realize they can do their jobs without being in the "office" most of the time.

I think working on "green" fuels is a good thing, but I think it's just putting the Band-Aid on the much larger problem, which is the ridiculous amount of driving that people do. In my opinion, a combination of better public transportation, ride-sharing, "green" fuel, and work from home, is a more fruitful way to cut down on pollution long-term.
 
I think we'll also see a huge decline in ICE (and all) vehicles as the workforce shifts to "work from home". Hundreds of millions of people have to travel hundreds of millions of miles every day just to get to work and back. A lot of those people go to an office building and do their entire job on a computer, "COVID" I think has woke people up in a sense that they realize they can do their jobs without being in the "office" most of the time.

I think working on "green" fuels is a good thing, but I think it's just putting the Band-Aid on the much larger problem, which is the ridiculous amount of driving that people do. In my opinion, a combination of better public transportation, ride-sharing, "green" fuel, and work from home, is a more fruitful way to cut down on pollution long-term.
I suspect work-from-home will also decrease demand from the grid as more and more homes install solar and fewer and fewer large corporate buildings have to power lights, office equipment, and environmental systems. Reality is, even when we're at work, the home A/C is usually still doing its thing (at least in southern states).
 
Fossil fuels namely natural gas is used to make fertilizer and also used to dry grain after harvest. So increasing Fossil fuel prices raises the cost per acre to grow crops. The growing population of the world and the reduction/loss of farmland we will need the crops for food not biofuel. Remember we can't eat meat only vegetables in this new utopia, so we'll need Even more land to produce food.
 
Maybe it sounds silly, or even unthinkable, any way to capture and process the methane produced by cows (in a humane way)?
 
Fossil fuels namely natural gas is used to make fertilizer and also used to dry grain after harvest. So increasing Fossil fuel prices raises the cost per acre to grow crops. The growing population of the world and the reduction/loss of farmland we will need the crops for food not biofuel. Remember we can't eat meat only vegetables in this new utopia, so we'll need Even more land to produce food.
I know food crops can be raised in my region. Ranchers seem to believe cattle (a non-native species) are appropriate on the plains, I disagree.
When folks stop buying beef there will be a lot of land available for farming and native species to graze more efficiently. Eliminate subsidies and most cattle ranchers will (whining and moaning) simply walk away.

Using natural fertilizers to raise an appropriate crop for the soil & climate makes more sense than poisoning the planet to force GMO food to grow. Reducing welfare that encourages laziness and procreation could slow population growth and put more people to work raising food.

There are enough fossil fuels in my region to supply the needs of the USA for more than 100 years. High fuel prices are unnecessary.
 
The U.S. Long Term Strategy to Net-Zero doesn't do away with the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE). Instead, it suggests gasoline be replaced with renewable green fuels.

Is this sustainability good news for farmers & the world? The U.S. 2018 Farm Bill Energy Title is probably just the beginning. I can see crops that can be converted into fuel as being profitable in that a hungry market will exist as fossil fuels are phased out.

I believe the thought is that as biofuel/gasoline prices go up, people will readily abandon ICE vehicles over the next 20 years for lower-cost and more reliable EVs that are far more economical. Environmentally, biofuels seem like they could overall be carbon negative.

But history also shows well-intentioned ideas can have very bad consequences if they're not thought out carefully. For example, if all the crops the U.S. produces already have a market, wouldn't switching to create fuel crops leave shortages?

What are your thoughts?

As a farmer, the two are not mutually exclusive.

The smell from 'Beer' or 'Mash' headed for a still smells remarkably like a healthy, active compost pile, so a lot of sugars in just weeds/crop/yard waste.

With the power you can make from E-85, I'm always surprised farm equipment didn't go that way.

For instance, salt marshs produce a grass thats very good at making renewable fuel. No human food I know of grows in salt marshes.
There are a LOT of salt marshes, and since the grass is cut and not completely removed, the native life isn't disrupted.

I don't have a salt marsh, so I didn't investigate it when I read about it...

There was some talk about kudzu being fermented and distilled. I'm SURE people in the south east would like for there to be a bounty on kudzu! They would like to see their homes, barns, trees again!

Again, I don't have kudzu (yet) but warming is bringing it closer every year...

There is algae farming. Algae farming takes a lot of heat & light. Water consumption is limited since the water is recycled. Perfect for desert type land that doesn't produce human food. The sun produces most of the energy outside of production equipment manufacture.

I grow plants that don't do well in direct sunlight under my tall post solar panels.

Tall posts keep farm equipment, kids, pets, livestock, wildlife, etc. from crashing into my panels, so the space beneath is accessible and available.

There was a run at corn stalk (not the grain) sugars for alcohol about 30 years ago I looked into.
It 'kinda' worked. The science was solid, but the costs were too high.

By the time the grain had matured and ready to harvest, the stalk sugars had dropped to levels it took WAY too many stalks to make viable alcohol, and anything that comes from distilling has to be disposed of, dregs from the distilling process... and it was water/energy intensive.

I'm all for 'Alternative' crops (read NOT corn, soy, hard red wheat) in the U.S.
The issue is humans spent the last 30,000 years hybridizing grain crops for food, and the last 30 years or so on fuel crops... so about a 30,000 year jump on the plants for fuel research.

I'm NOT behind GMO for food or fuel. Not enough research! We are having enough of a hard time dealing with GMO plants that 'Escaped', or plants that crossed traits with GMOs the way it is.

Someone didn't care that organisms in the soil can transfer genetic material naturally, and now we are screwed in a lot of places.

They also didn't care about cross pollination brings the GMO genes to non-GMO strains completely screwing up traditional seed lines.
 
Last edited:

Whatever this psychopath comes up with is most definitely not good for anyone of us.
1684698162239.png
 
Keep trying Leo, ROFL
Don't worry, I will keep exposing the conspiracy sites for what they are.

From the horses mouth for stiff ones who only trust bought and paid for dinosaur media!
I read that, no one is saying they are "going after farmers" It is possible to significantly, reduce farm emissions without hurting farmers, that is the conspiracy nutter argument, why do you fall for that? Even when Republicans are suggesting to reduce ethanol requirement in fuel and that hurts corn growers, you don't see any one claiming that "republicans are going after farmers" Why not?

Seriously there are ways to make fertilizers without the use of fossil fuels, to run tractors on biodiesel and even the sprays to keep fungus and pests of the crops.
 
In a May 15 speech to an EU-sponsored event appropriately titled “The Beyond Growth Conference,” European Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen said out loud what the climate alarm movement has been trying to keep under wraps for a decade: That economic de-growth enforced by authoritarian governments is a fundamental element of its agenda.

Von Der Leyen didn’t blurt it right out, of course: It was all couched in carefully written code words and phrases, but a close reading of her speech leaves no real room for doubt about the message. In her view — and apparently the view of the European Parliament — the time for economic de-growth has come.

“I today want to concentrate on one point, and that is a point that the report got right beyond any doubt: That is the clear message that a growth model centred on fossil fuels is simply obsolete,” Von Der Leyen told her rapt audience, before moving onto a reference to the Club of Rome, and its famous 1972 report titled “Limits to Growth.” That report has served as a basic handbook for the de-growth movement ever since.

“50 years ago,” she continues, “the Club of Rome could not completely envisage, for example, the potential of green hydrogen. It could not envisage that we might drive today’s electric cars. It might not be able to see the future we would have, for example with batteries from which we can recycle 95% of lithium, nickel and cobalt. It is not the daily procedure today, but we are able to do it. But already 50 years ago, the ‘Limits to Growth’ report acknowledged that while fossil-based growth was unbearable for the planet, humanity could devise a different growth model ‘that is sustainable far into the future.’“

Having laid that groundwork, Von Der Leyen then moved into a code-word filled admission that the movement is all about promoting an authoritarian form of socialism, repeatedly referring to what she dubs Europe’s “social market economy,” i.e., an economy that is centrally planned. So intent is she on embedding this terminology into the EU collective’s hive mind that she deploys it five times across roughly 150 words:

“Our compass in this endeavour are the long-standing values – the true values, if you get it right – of the European social market economy. Our social market economy was never exclusively about economic growth. It was always about human development. It never had the sole goal of market efficiency and liberalisation. To the contrary: The social market economy functions in the interest of the worker and the community. It opens opportunities, also to set very clear limits. It rewards performance but also guarantees protection for the big risks in life. Beyond growth, it focuses on public goods such as healthcare, education and skills, workers’ rights, personal security, civic engagement and governance – good governance. Our social market economy, if you get it right, encourages everyone to excel, but it also takes care of our fragility as human beings. The values of the social market economy have driven us since the beginning of this Commission’s mandate.”

But this gets better.

In almost her next breath, she goes onto frankly admit that her government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was not about public health, but about what the World Economic Forum refers to as “The Great Reset,” an effort to transform economies based in free markets to controlled systems managed by authoritarian governments.

“First, when the pandemic hit us. Our Recovery Plan, NextGenerationEU, has focused not only on restarting our economic activities after the lockdowns but also on transforming our economic model. With a push to decarbonising industries, energy and transport. With an emphasis on digital skills and digital infrastructure. With new investments for schools and hospitals. Beyond growth, NextGenerationEU takes care of the next generation’s future.”

See? It isn’t just about an authoritarian group of government central planners managing every facet of your daily lives, it’s about their desire to “take care” of you.

Though couched in carefully-coded language, this speech is a pretty frank admission that what these western governments have put their populations through since 2020 has been about one thing: control, and forcing all of us to live smaller and less prosperous lives under the yoke of an authoritarian system of government. In 2020, the rationale for all of it was COVID-19; today, the rationale is climate change.

Before Monday, de-growth had been the quiet part of the energy transition movement. After Von Der Leyen’s speech, it seems about to become the centerpiece.

What an extraordinary speech it was.
 
Don't worry, I will keep exposing the conspiracy sites for what they are.


I read that, no one is saying they are "going after farmers" It is possible to significantly, reduce farm emissions without hurting farmers, that is the conspiracy nutter argument, why do you fall for that? Even when Republicans are suggesting to reduce ethanol requirement in fuel and that hurts corn growers, you don't see any one claiming that "republicans are going after farmers" Why not?

Seriously there are ways to make fertilizers without the use of fossil fuels, to run tractors on biodiesel and even the sprays to keep fungus and pests of the crops.

With the power you can make using E-85 im surprised the farmers haven't gone that direction...

Small scale bio-diesel is polluting as hell. That's best left to large scale refineries where someone can keep an eye on the toxic waste generated.

I'm old enough to remember the big social engineering lies... "Better Living Through Chemestry" so they could sell more untested poison the taxpayer has spent 50 years mitigating or cleaning up...

Another one of those...
Capitolism is the opposite of Communisum, for instance...
... Idiots...

I can't think of a single chemical, herbicide, pesticide, fungicide, etc we used in the 60s/70s that's not illegal today. If you have leftover laying around you can go to jail for any quantity on some of it...

They slathered us with ground asbestos calling it baby powder, they fogged us with DDT for mosquitos, they gave us lead in about everything, including baby teething toys, etc.

And let's not forget about benzine! Dioxin ('Agent Orange'), 2,4,5,T off the benzine ring... As weed killer sold until it started showing up in human tissue, water table, soft drinks, etc.

It's not the "Government Conspiracy" against farmers...
It's global conglomerate companies, and it's not really a secret there **IS** a conspiracy since they have been caught so many times. It's just not 'Secret'.

From grain processors fixing purchase prices, fixing prices for processed products, to chemical companies dumping banned toxic waste into products farmers use to avoid properly disposing of it, to letting China buy up farm land, exhaust and toxify it, then break it up for subdivision where it can't be rehabbed and used as farm ground again...

And let's not forget the banks... the lending and insurance companies, or 'Capital Control', money restrictions.

When it comes to stupid ideas/laws/rules/regulations, the Republicans have traditionally been the biggest offenders.
Taxation in particular, they like to raise existing taxes so they can say "No New Taxes"...

Restricting/banning rain water collection for irrigation was another. Where the hell do they think every drop of surface water comes from?

I can point at 'Stupid', but I can't do much about it, I'm not a far winger (either side) so I only vote once...
 
Last edited:
In a May 15 speech to an EU-sponsored event appropriately titled “The Beyond Growth Conference,” European Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen said out loud what the climate alarm movement has been trying to keep under wraps for a decade: That economic de-growth enforced by authoritarian governments is a fundamental element of its agenda.

Von Der Leyen didn’t blurt it right out, of course: It was all couched in carefully written code words and phrases, but a close reading of her speech leaves no real room for doubt about the message. In her view — and apparently the view of the European Parliament — the time for economic de-growth has come.

“I today want to concentrate on one point, and that is a point that the report got right beyond any doubt: That is the clear message that a growth model centred on fossil fuels is simply obsolete,” Von Der Leyen told her rapt audience, before moving onto a reference to the Club of Rome, and its famous 1972 report titled “Limits to Growth.” That report has served as a basic handbook for the de-growth movement ever since.

“50 years ago,” she continues, “the Club of Rome could not completely envisage, for example, the potential of green hydrogen. It could not envisage that we might drive today’s electric cars. It might not be able to see the future we would have, for example with batteries from which we can recycle 95% of lithium, nickel and cobalt. It is not the daily procedure today, but we are able to do it. But already 50 years ago, the ‘Limits to Growth’ report acknowledged that while fossil-based growth was unbearable for the planet, humanity could devise a different growth model ‘that is sustainable far into the future.’“

Having laid that groundwork, Von Der Leyen then moved into a code-word filled admission that the movement is all about promoting an authoritarian form of socialism, repeatedly referring to what she dubs Europe’s “social market economy,” i.e., an economy that is centrally planned. So intent is she on embedding this terminology into the EU collective’s hive mind that she deploys it five times across roughly 150 words:

“Our compass in this endeavour are the long-standing values – the true values, if you get it right – of the European social market economy. Our social market economy was never exclusively about economic growth. It was always about human development. It never had the sole goal of market efficiency and liberalisation. To the contrary: The social market economy functions in the interest of the worker and the community. It opens opportunities, also to set very clear limits. It rewards performance but also guarantees protection for the big risks in life. Beyond growth, it focuses on public goods such as healthcare, education and skills, workers’ rights, personal security, civic engagement and governance – good governance. Our social market economy, if you get it right, encourages everyone to excel, but it also takes care of our fragility as human beings. The values of the social market economy have driven us since the beginning of this Commission’s mandate.”

But this gets better.

In almost her next breath, she goes onto frankly admit that her government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was not about public health, but about what the World Economic Forum refers to as “The Great Reset,” an effort to transform economies based in free markets to controlled systems managed by authoritarian governments.

“First, when the pandemic hit us. Our Recovery Plan, NextGenerationEU, has focused not only on restarting our economic activities after the lockdowns but also on transforming our economic model. With a push to decarbonising industries, energy and transport. With an emphasis on digital skills and digital infrastructure. With new investments for schools and hospitals. Beyond growth, NextGenerationEU takes care of the next generation’s future.”

See? It isn’t just about an authoritarian group of government central planners managing every facet of your daily lives, it’s about their desire to “take care” of you.

Though couched in carefully-coded language, this speech is a pretty frank admission that what these western governments have put their populations through since 2020 has been about one thing: control, and forcing all of us to live smaller and less prosperous lives under the yoke of an authoritarian system of government. In 2020, the rationale for all of it was COVID-19; today, the rationale is climate change.

Before Monday, de-growth had been the quiet part of the energy transition movement. After Von Der Leyen’s speech, it seems about to become the centerpiece.

What an extraordinary speech it was.
1684772701896.png


 
With the power you can make using E-85 im surprised the farmers haven't gone that direction...
The idea was to make ethanol from the wast products of rowing corn, but the market will always look for the most cost effective way to make the products without regard to third parties.

Small scale bio-diesel is polluting as hell. That's best left to large scale refineries where someone can keep an eye on the toxic waste generated.
I have never tried to make it, but the idea is that you get the vegetable oil for free, market forces don't care about externalities.

I'm old enough to remember the big social engineering lies... "Better Living Through Chemestry" so they could sell more untested poison the taxpayer has spent 50 years mitigating or cleaning up...
But at the same time crop production is up many times, the progress wasn't all bad.

Capitolism is the opposite of Communisum, for instance...
Both economic systems, both have flaws because of people... And dictatorships come in many forms.

... Idiots...
None of us are perfect, if I were, life would be boring...

I can't think of a single chemical, herbicide, pesticide, fungicide, etc we used in the 60s/70s that's not illegal today. If you have leftover laying around you can go to jail for any quantity on some of it...
Because we focused on how effective those chemicals were, not the potential harm. We have learned (I hope) and put processes in place to try to discover those before allowing the use of it. Europe is fighting the US on certain chemicals and hormones in food imports. The US claims it is safe, but the products are banned in Europe. Regardless, I still believe there is a lot of room for improvement.

They slathered us with ground asbestos calling it baby powder
Talkon and asbestos are found close together, I am surprised baby powder is still used.

, they fogged us with DDT for mosquitos
Yeah, it is still used today.

, they gave us lead in abut everything, including baby teething toys, etc.
Because it was cost effective for the companies.

And let's not forget about benzine! Dioxin ('Agent Orange'), 2,4,5,T off the bending ring... As weed killer sold until it started showing up in human tissue, water table, soft drinks, etc.
All this could have been prevented if we did testing beforehand and sued companies who produce the stuff.

It's not the "Government Conspiracy" against farmers...
Governments, left and right wing, like farmers. Look at the subsidies in electricity, roads postal services...

It's global conglomerate companies, and it's not really a secret there **IS** a conspiracy since they have been caught so many times. It's just not 'Secret'.
It is not a conspiracy, they know what needs to be done to maximize profit and don't need to discuss it.

From grain processors fixing purchase prices, fixing prices for processed products, to chemical companies dumping banned toxic waste into products farmers use to avoid properly disposing of it, to letting China buy up farm land, exhaust and toxify it, then break it up for subdivision where it can't be rehabbed and used as farm ground again...
That is how the free market works though, you want to restrict who can and can't buy land, how it is used etc and you will be accused of being a communist...

And let's not forget the banks... the lending and insurance companies, or 'Capital Control', money restrictions.
You might want to have a look at fractional reserve lending and Basel 4. The 2007 financial crisis becomes easier to understand, especially when you realize that a government will try to intervene when banks collapse to try to prevent a collapse of society. Anarchist would welcome it, I don't.

When it comes to stupid ideas/laws/rules/regulations, the Republicans have traditionally been the biggest offenders.
Taxation in particular, they like to raise existing taxes so they can say "No New Taxes"...
I have no idea how to fix things over there, but from what I hear is that your tax system is overly complex and if you want to have nice things as a society, you might want to find ways to pay for it.

Restricting/banning rain water collection for irrigation was another. Where the hell do they think every drop of surface water comes from?
I heard that happened in Australia and Bolivia, did that happen there as well?

I can point at 'Stupid', but I can't do much about it, I'm not a far winger (either side) so I only vote once...
I lean towards publicly owned roads (communism) and privately made cars (capitalism) Those are the labels I get thrown at me when I mention them lol
 
Small scale bio-diesel is polluting as hell. That's best left to large scale refineries where someone can keep an eye on the toxic waste generated.
Biodiesel does not produce toxic waste. I'm not sure where you got that bit of info from, but it is certainly incorrect.. Not just misleading, outright wrong.

Biodiesel production produces two waste streams.. A soapy water, which is so benign that you can water your lawn with it, and a glycerol product, which ends up being about 25% of the biodiesel produced by volume.

The glycerol product has many uses, it also has many options for treating it as a waste product. The glycerin makes for a wonderful biodegradable weed killer.. spray the weeds and the glycerin coats the leaves and chokes the weed out... it dies in about two weeks. The only warning that comes with using it as a weed killer is that it breaks down into a wonderful fertilizer over winter and the weeds come back stronger.

Glycerin is also excellent to keep dust down on dirt roads, and you can also make an excellent soap from it right at home in a very simple process.

Finally, glycerine makes an excellent mold release for concrete forms or it can be added to cow feed as cows will kill each other to get at it because it's sweet tasting to them.

As for the methanol that is in the waste streams, it mostly evaporates. For larger waste volumes, the methanol is easily recovered through simple vacuum distillation. Because the glycerin and the methanol have boiling points that are FAR FAR away from each other, distilling the methanol out is a simple job. Yes, you'll get some water with it too, but the water is easily removed from the methanol using a molecular sieve or through a more controlled distillation process.

Glycerine can also be acidified to separate it into its constituent parts through basic stratification. Adding hydrochloric acid will yield a semi-pure and clarified glycerine layer, a pure layer of free fatty acids (which burn like rocket fuel), and a layer of sodium chloride or potassium chloride (depending on the catalyst you used). The top layer can be used in soaps and cosmetics, the middle layer can be added back to the biodiesel/veg oil stream and esterified, and the bottom layer can be used for keeping walkways free of ice in the winter.

About the only thing you DO NOT want to do with glycerin is add nitric acid to it.. Not ever, not for any reason... BOOM.


I'm old enough to remember the big social engineering lies... "Better Living Through Chemestry" so they could sell more untested poison the taxpayer has spent 50 years mitigating or cleaning up...
Meanwhile, you're on a computer, probably sitting in a chair, and probably wearing clothing, that are all the result of 'better living through chemistry".
Chemistry is a tool, and like all tools, it can be used inappropriately.

Another one of those...
Capitolism is the opposite of Communisum, for instance...
... Idiots...

I can't think of a single chemical, herbicide, pesticide, fungicide, etc we used in the 60s/70s that's not illegal today. If you have leftover laying around you can go to jail for any quantity on some of it...
Sulfur
And I would challenge your assertion that you can go to jail for having left over garden supplies. but I'm not a legal expert so..

They slathered us with ground asbestos calling it baby powder, they fogged us with DDT for mosquitos, they gave us lead in about everything, including baby teething toys, etc.

And let's not forget about benzine! Dioxin ('Agent Orange'), 2,4,5,T off the bending ring... As weed killer sold until it started showing up in human tissue, water table, soft drinks, etc.

It's not the "Government Conspiracy" against farmers...
It's global conglomerate companies, and it's not really a secret there **IS** a conspiracy since they have been caught so many times. It's just not 'Secret'.

From grain processors fixing purchase prices, fixing prices for processed products, to chemical companies dumping banned toxic waste into products farmers use to avoid properly disposing of it, to letting China buy up farm land, exhaust and toxify it, then break it up for subdivision where it can't be rehabbed and used as farm ground again...

And let's not forget the banks... the lending and insurance companies, or 'Capital Control', money restrictions.

When it comes to stupid ideas/laws/rules/regulations, the Republicans have traditionally been the biggest offenders.
Taxation in particular, they like to raise existing taxes so they can say "No New Taxes"...

Restricting/banning rain water collection for irrigation was another. Where the hell do they think every drop of surface water comes from?

I can point at 'Stupid', but I can't do much about it, I'm not a far winger (either side) so I only vote once...


Of course, I say this for the benefit of others because you have me on ignore and won't learn squat from it.
 
I love it, all the fact checker sites you guys provide are well known leftists that have sold themselves out to the parasite class! Love it!
It is all a huge conspiracy right?

Have you ever considered the possibility that the experts are right and that you could be wrong? If so, do you have examples?
 
It is all a huge conspiracy right?

Have you ever considered the possibility that the experts are right and that you could be wrong? If so, do you have examples?
Did you seriously just ask him that? Consider the question from HIS point of view, how do you think he's going to answer?

If you want examples from HIS point, just go visit every conspiracy nut job website you can find and there you go.
 
Back
Top